coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Celje.
6.  On 10 February 1994 the applicant was injured in an accident at work in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju). The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 20 February 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court seeking damages in the amount of 1,586,610 tolars (approximately 6,600 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 30 March 1995 the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) transferred the case to the Ptuj Local Court (Okrajno sodišče na Ptuju), since the applicant was an employee of the Celje Local Court.
Between 8 June 1996 and 25 September 1997 the applicant made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.
On 20 February 1997 the court held a hearing.
On 17 March 1997 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.
On 25 March 1997 the court appointed a medical expert.
On 24 October 1997 the applicant increased her claim to 3,136,610 tolars (approximately 13,000 euros).
On 8 January 1998 the court declared the case out of its jurisdiction and the case was transferred to the Ptuj District Court (Okrožno sodišče na Ptuju)
Between 18 February 1998 and 3 May 1999 the applicant made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Between 6 March 1998 and 1 September 1999 she lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Of the three hearings held between 27 November 1998 and 6 September 1999 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts who also appeared before the court.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 17 September 1999.
8.  On 27 September 1999 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru). ZT cross-appealed.
On 11 September 2002 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part dismissed the ZT’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 4 July 2002.
9.  On 10 July 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court.
On 29 May 2003 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 26 June 2003.
6.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Hagimus.
7.  Following the construction of a public road, her house was damaged and she brought an action against the Local Council.
8.  On 1 June 2001 she obtained a judgment in her favour, according to which the Local Council was obliged to pay her 155,868 Moldovan lei (MDL). On 29 January 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the Local Council’s appeal. On 11 April 2002 the Court of Appeal dismissed the Local Council’s appeal on points of law and the judgment became final.
9.  It appears from the documents submitted by the applicant that on 21 May 2002 an enforcement warrant was sent by the Căuşeni District Court to the Căuşeni Department of Enforcement of Judgments.
10.  The applicant complained to the Căuşeni District Court and to the Ministry of Justice on numerous occasions about the non-enforcement of the judgment favourable to her.
11.  In a letter of 28 August 2002 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that during the enforcement proceedings the court decided to change the manner of enforcement of the judgment and on 29 July 2002 it issued a decision in that respect. That decision was challenged by one of the parties to the proceedings.
12.  In the meantime, on 11 July 2002 the Prosecutor General’s Office filed a request for annulment of all the judgments, and asked the Supreme Court of Justice to re-open the proceedings.
13.  On 2 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the request for annulment, quashed all the judgments and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings. The re-opened proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts.
4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Maastricht, the Netherlands.
5.  In May 1995 a certain A.Š. broke in and occupied the applicant’s summer house in Sabunike near Zadar. Following the applicant’s successful civil action, on 8 October 2001 A.Š. vacated the house.
6.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.
7.  On 20 March 1999 the applicant brought a civil action against the State and the County of Zadar (Županija Zadarska – “the County”) with the Zadar Municipal Court seeking damages. He argued that the State and the County were liable for A.Š.’s breaking into his house and the ensuing damage. In particular, the applicant sought compensation for the rent lost due to the prolonged inability to let the house to tourists and for the value of the stolen movable property.
8.  On 25 May 2000 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that A.Š.’s act was not to be qualified as an act of violence for which the State or the County was liable. Accordingly, there was no need to stay the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment. The applicant appealed.
9.  On 17 April 2002 the Zadar County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. It found that the subject-matter of the case was to be considered an act of violence for which the State or the County was liable. Accordingly, it instructed the Municipal Court to stay the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.
10.  On 30 April 2002 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings.
11.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.
12. Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 15 February 2005 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings and scheduled a hearing for 11 April 2005.
8.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Amorosi (Benevento).
9.  In a judgment deposited with the court's registry on 30 June 1997, the Benevento District Court made a winding-up order in respect of the applicant's company, a beverage company, and also declared the applicant personally bankrupt.
10.  On 15 October 1997 the trustee in bankruptcy filed a report.
11.  On 9 April 1998 the bankruptcy judge (“the judge”) checked the statement of liabilities of the bankrupt estate and on 7 June 1999 declared it judicially established (esecutivo).
12.  On 1, 5 and 9 July 1999 respectively the companies C.D.O., C.C.C. and F.C. instituted proceedings contesting the statement of liabilities.
13.  At a hearing held on 14 April 2000, the judge ordered the striking out of the action brought by the company F.C. as being out of time.
14.  On 18 December 2000 the trustee in bankruptcy requested the creditors' committee to give its opinion on the possible sale of two lorries in very poor condition which were listed in the statement of assets.
15.  On 8 January 2001 the trustee in bankruptcy requested the judge to declare the lorries unfit for sale (illiquidabili) so that the proceedings could be terminated.
16.  On 5 February 2001 the trustee in bankruptcy filed the revenue and expenditure account, which the judge approved on 12 March 2001.
17.  By a decision deposited with the registry on 20 March 2001, the judge terminated the bankruptcy proceedings for lack of any further assets to distribute.
18.  The decision was posted in the District Court on 23 March 2001. It became final on 7 April 2001.
4.  The first applicant was born in 1953. The second applicant was born in 1962. They both reside in Kharkiv. They are former employees of the State Enterprise “Vilne Housing and Communal Property Authority” of the Dzhankoy District of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the “debtor”).
5.  On 14 February 1999 the Dzhankoy City Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicants UAH 573.43[1] and UAH 256.12[2], respectively. The court issued separate judgments with respect to each applicant on 6 March and 7 April 1999.
6.  On 24 February 1999 the Dzhankoy Bailiffs’ Service (the “DBS”) initiated the enforcement proceedings in the case.
7.  On 29 September 1999 the Dzhankoy City Court awarded the first applicant UAH 140.60[3] in child support arrears.
8.  On 2 September 2000 the Crimean Department of Justice of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicants that the enforcement proceedings were still pending.
9.  On 20 August 2001 the DBS attached the debtor’s bank accounts. Certain enforcement actions were undertaken by the DBS from 26 November 2001 to 26 January 2004 (attachment of the debtor’s funds, sale of its property, etc.).
10.  On 26 January 2004 the applicants had been fully paid the salary arrears due to them and the judgments had thus been enforced.
11.  On 29 January 2004 the DBS terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicants’ case.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the village of Bilashky, the Vinnitsa region of Ukraine.
5.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Staromiskiy Local Court of Vinnitsa against her former employer – the “Vinnitska Kondyterska Fabryka” Open Joint Stock Company – to be reinstated in her position and to receive compensation.
6.  On 12 November 2001 the court discontinued proceedings in the applicant’s case on the ground that she had failed to appear before the court.
7.  On 27 February 2002 the Vinnitsa Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of 12 November 2001. On 26 April 2002 the applicant appealed in cassation.
8.  On 29 April 2002 the Staromiskiy Local Court rejected the applicant’s request for a cassation appeal as having been submitted too late. The court stated that, under the new wording of Article 321 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter - “the CCP”), which had entered into force on 4 April 2002, the time-limit for lodging an appeal in cassation was one month, and that the applicant had exceeded that time-limit by only lodging her appeal on 26 April 2002. No reference was made in the decision to the actual deadline which had not been complied with.
9.  On 9 September 2002 the Vinnitsa Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of 29 April 2002.
10.  On 5 February 2003 the panel of three judges of the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation against the rulings of 29 April and 9 September 2002.
4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On an undetermined date between December 1990 and October 1992, the applicant brought an action in trespass against her neighbour in the Pest Central District Court.
6.  Between 19 October 1993 and 17 November 1998 the District Court held nine hearings, repeatedly instructed the applicant to submit better particulars of her claims and appointed a legal-aid lawyer. On the latter date it dismissed the applicant’s action, holding that the disturbance that had been caused by maintenance works on some pipes crossing through the applicant’s plot was of a reasonable extent and justified by the rights under the neighbour’s easement.
7.  On 19 November 1999 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
8.  On 16 March 2000 the applicant filed a petition for review.
9.  On 26 June 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review, holding that the first and second instance judgments had been delivered according to the law. This decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 17 October 2002.
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 67506/01) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Lithuanian national, Mr Vytautas Bendžius (“the applicant”), on 19 December 2000. 3.  The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been subjected to entrapment in breach of Article 6 of the Convention. His last communication to the Court was a letter dated 14 February 2004, sent from his home address in Jurbarkas, stating that he maintained his complaint under the Convention. 4.  The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. 5.  On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Second Section (Rule 52 § 1). Ms D. Jočienė, the judge elected in respect of Lithuania, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr J.-P. Costa, the judge elected in respect of France, to sit in her place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 7.  By a letter dated 29 April 2005, the Registry informed the applicant about the decision. The applicant was invited to submit by 27 June 2005 his observations on the merits, his position on a friendly settlement of the case and his claims for just satisfaction (Rules 59, 60 and 62 of the Rules of Court). 9.  By a letter dated 11 August 2005, sent to the applicant’s home address by registered post, the Registry reminded the applicant that the time-limit for submission of his observations on the merits had expired, without a reply from him. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that an applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 10.  Receipt of the registered letter of 11 August 2005 was confirmed by the postal service. The applicant has not replied to this correspondence.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Strzelce Krajeńskie, Poland.
5.  On 3 March 2000 the applicant was brought before the Radomsko District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). He was charged with having committed burglary. The court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 1 June 2000.
6.  The applicant was placed in the Piotrków Trybunalski Detention Centre (Areszt Śledczy). His detention was subsequently prolonged several times until the end of the proceedings against him.
7.  On 15 November 2000 the Radomsko District Court convicted the applicant of handling stolen goods and sentenced him to 15 months’ imprisonment.
8.  On 2 February 2001 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the first-instance judgment.
9.  On 28 May 2001 the applicant’s officially-appointed lawyer, who represented him in the proceedings before both instances, refused to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf.
10.  The applicant sent numerous letters to the Court, most of which appear to have been opened and read by the domestic authorities.
11.  The applicant’s first letter of 1 May 2000 bears the stamp “Radomsko District Prosecutor (Prokuratura Rejonowa w Radomsku)”, the date 8 May 2000 (stamped), and an illegible signature.
12.  His letter of 27 August 2001 bears the same stamp, a signature “prok. R. Gawęcka (Prosecutor R. Gawęcka)”, and the date 28 August 2001, which is both stamped and hand-written.
13.  The applicant’s letter of 10 September 2001 is marked with the same stamp and the date 12 September 2001 (stamped and hand-written) and bears an illegible signature.
14.  The envelopes of the applicant’s letters of 14 and 22 October, 18 November 2001, 2 April, 3 and 22 July, 13 October, 4 December 2002 bear the stamp “Censored” (ocenzurowano) and the official stamp of the Radomsko District Court. Each of them is marked with a date-stamp and an illegible signature. All envelopes bear traces of opening after being sealed: they were cut open and resealed with adhesive tape.
15.  On 3 January 2003 the applicant sent a letter to the Court. He complained that his correspondence with the Court’s Registry had been censored. He enclosed the envelope of the letter sent to him by the Registry on 22 November 2002. The envelope was marked with the stamp “Censored”, the date 5 December 2002 and an illegible signature. The envelope of the applicant’s letter to the Court also bears the stamp “censored”, the date 10 January 2003 and an illegible signature. They have been covered up with white corrector fluid.
5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Velenje.
6.  On 20 April 1994 the applicant was injured while serving military service as a conscript.
7.  On 23 April 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings with the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) against the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia seeking damages in the amount of 4,373,756 tolars (approximately 18,200 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 25 September 1997 the presiding judge was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was assigned to a new judge.
On 23 November 1998 the applicant made a request that a date be set for a hearing.
Between 17 May 1997 and 20 September 2001 the applicant lodged eight preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Of the five hearings held between 5 February 1999 and 8 October 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 7 November 2001.
8.  On 21 November 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). He also requested that the court corrected its judgment. ZT cross-appealed.
On 5 November 2001 the judge, presiding the case before the first-instance court, was appointed to the Celje Higher Court and the case was assigned to a new judge.
On 10 November 2003 the Celje District Court held a hearing and decided to issue a supplementary judgment. This judgment was served on the applicant on 19 January 2004.
On 29 January 2004 the applicant appealed against the supplementary judgment to the Celje Higher Court.
On 27 May 2004 the court allowed the appeals from both parties, annulled the first-instance court’s judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
9.  The proceedings before the first-instance court are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Goričan.
6.  As a result of the accident at work, which occurred on 15 February 1988, the applicant was a disabled person. From 1 June 1990 until 30 September 1993, he was in training to qualify for a post suitable for his health problems. After the training, he was not appointed to any post at his employer, the company called EM. On 15 October 1994 he was made redundant.
7.  On 24 November 1994 the applicant instituted labour law proceedings against EM in the Celje Labour Court (Delovno sodišče v Celju) contesting the termination of employment. He also sought temporary injunction.
On 12 December 1994 the court issued a temporary injunction ordering EM to pay the applicant an advance of his salaries since 1 November 1994.
EM appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče). On 12 January 1995 the court dismissed the appeal.
On 6 April 1995 the Celje Labour Court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment.
The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 13 April 1995.
8.  At an undetermined time, EM appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.
On 9 October 1996 the court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
9.  On 19 September 1997 the applicant requested in the first-instance court that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the five hearings held between 27 March and 11 December 1997 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 17 December 1997.
10.  At an undetermined time, EM appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.
On 4 February 1999 the court allowed the appeal in part and remitted the claim to the first-instance court for re-examination.
11.  At an undetermined time, EM lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 23 November 1999 the court dismissed the appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 14 December 1999.
12.  On 24 February 2000 the first-instance court held a hearing and appointed a financial expert to calculate the applicant’s loss of income. On 1 February 2001 the court held a hearing and decided to issue a written judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 26 February 2001.
13.  On 27 February 2001, the applicant appealed against the decision concerning the costs and expenses.
On 18 July 2002 the Higher Labour and Social Court dismissed the appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 3 September 2002.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Velenje.
6.  On 5 February 1996 the applicant was injured in an accident at work in a mine. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 27 May 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,068,257 tolars (approximately 12,800 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 19 June 2001 and 14 February 2002 the applicant lodged five preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 10 November 1998 and 30 March 2001 he made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Neither of the hearings held on 24 September 2001 and 11 March 2002 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 11 April 2002.
8.  On 15 April 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 9 July 2003 the court dismissed both appeals.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 25 August 2003.
9.  On 12 September 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). ZT cross-appealed.
On 17 February 2005 the court dismissed the appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 21 March 2005.
5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Vitanje.
6.  On 28 June 1994 the applicant was injured while serving a military service as a conscript.
7.  On 30 December 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against Ministry of Defence in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 4,367,095 Slovenia tolars (approximately 18,200 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 21 September 1998 and 3 July 2003 the applicant lodged seven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 1 September 1997 and 25 November 1998 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the three hearings held between 5 October 1998 and 1 October 2003, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert and a fighting expert.
In the course of the proceedings, the case was twice, namely on 25 September 1997 and 5 November 2001, reassigned to a new judge due to a promotion of the previous judges.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 8 December 2003.
8.  On 10 December 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).
On 20 October 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 8 December 2005.
9.  On 13 December 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
The proceedings are still pending.